A
Anonymous
Guest
JB: "But like so many orginizations, if you ain't got a lot of money, it's hard to get to all of the national meetings. And when you get there, if you are of the minority, you are pooh poohed, or treated like the bastard at the family reunion."
Have you ever attended an NCBA convention?
Yes or no?
JB: "Seems to me that whenever there is a disenting viewpoint, NCBA is quick to claim that the person who disagrees is a crackpot or wacko."
Either the "supposed" "crackpot" or "wacko" can back their position with supporting facts or they cannot.
The discrediting statements towards any viewpoint without the facts to support the opposing position are meaningless.
From....
JB: "To me the checkoff is a form of taxation without representation"
to.......
JB: "I have no problem with a checkoff and in fact think we should all pay more, but I do have a problem with how we set it up and how the money is spent."
How should it be set up and how should the money be spent?
JB: "We should have left a broader avenue for use of the money, ie; lobbying and useing the money to prove or disprove scientific theories and other options."
Would you rather have beef checkoff money spent on lobbying to close the Canadian border, lobbying to open the Canadian border, or spent developing new beef products that would add value to the chuck and round and promoting those new products?
Would you rather have beef checkoff money spent suing ibp/Tyson for a larger share of their $26 per head profits during their best years (lobbying) or working with ibp/Tyson to help reduce ecoli outbreaks (research)?
Considering the differences of opinions on the Canadian border and packer concentration, do you really think spending this money on lobbying would be better spent than working to regain marketshare from poultry and pork?
JB: "We also should have had it up for re-newel every 5 years to see if the body of cattle people thought the money was being spent on worthwile projects, by the right people. After all, it is our money."
All that is required by law is a measely 10% of the producer's signatures to call it to a vote. How difficult should it be to get 10% LEGITIMATE producer signatures to bring it to a vote if there is misuse of funds?
~SH~
Have you ever attended an NCBA convention?
Yes or no?
JB: "Seems to me that whenever there is a disenting viewpoint, NCBA is quick to claim that the person who disagrees is a crackpot or wacko."
Either the "supposed" "crackpot" or "wacko" can back their position with supporting facts or they cannot.
The discrediting statements towards any viewpoint without the facts to support the opposing position are meaningless.
From....
JB: "To me the checkoff is a form of taxation without representation"
to.......
JB: "I have no problem with a checkoff and in fact think we should all pay more, but I do have a problem with how we set it up and how the money is spent."
How should it be set up and how should the money be spent?
JB: "We should have left a broader avenue for use of the money, ie; lobbying and useing the money to prove or disprove scientific theories and other options."
Would you rather have beef checkoff money spent on lobbying to close the Canadian border, lobbying to open the Canadian border, or spent developing new beef products that would add value to the chuck and round and promoting those new products?
Would you rather have beef checkoff money spent suing ibp/Tyson for a larger share of their $26 per head profits during their best years (lobbying) or working with ibp/Tyson to help reduce ecoli outbreaks (research)?
Considering the differences of opinions on the Canadian border and packer concentration, do you really think spending this money on lobbying would be better spent than working to regain marketshare from poultry and pork?
JB: "We also should have had it up for re-newel every 5 years to see if the body of cattle people thought the money was being spent on worthwile projects, by the right people. After all, it is our money."
All that is required by law is a measely 10% of the producer's signatures to call it to a vote. How difficult should it be to get 10% LEGITIMATE producer signatures to bring it to a vote if there is misuse of funds?
~SH~
